Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump and QAnon gang remain the most influential power

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post



    That you think this is even still open for debate shows how out of touch you are.
    For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

    Oh - of course. Exactly.



    The fact is, there was no evidence that it was Kavanaugh, and quite a lot of evidence that it wasn't. We are certain of that. The only thing we are uncertain of is whether Ford was willfully lying, or if she was being manipulated and coerced into "remembering" events that never happened.
    A lack of evidence is not "evidence that it wasn't". And if there are reasons to doubt Ford, there are just as many to doubt Kavanaugh - though I have no intention of rehashing that topic with you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ronson
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

    You did in fact understand the point. And the only reason I gave the example was that I was accused of presenting a no win situation by saying that if those doing the Arizona audit, who expect to find fraud, and who will be greatly rewarded if thy find fraud, could be able to be judged honest if they announced they did not find fraud. Unfortunately, I need to accept the fact that making any sort of nuanced observation on this website is not likely to induce anything but a hostile and derogatory response and therefore simply isn't worth noting.
    No, sorry. Your long-winded example was justification for judging the investigation based on prior beliefs. In almost any situation you look at, people have incentives to lean one way or another. So you needn't have bothered with your Santa Claus example (which was an obvious ploy to introduce a ridiculous conclusion against all other conclusions).

    And my response was neither "hostile" nor "derogatory." Coming from the person who called me "despicable" for merely pointing out that Howard University discriminates enrollment based on race, I find your delicate sensitivities unconvincing anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post

    Wasn't he also inclined to say "argument by link" when links were supplied, and refuse to look at them? Or was that someone else? I'm starting to forget.
    Not sure. He leaned heavily on "assertion without evidence" but regardless it was all a move to dismiss arguments without ever dealing with them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ronson
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    He was a right wing person. He would come in, spout some random/extreme nonsesne/conspiracy.

    If people explained his logic was wrong, he would reply "Assertion without evidence"
    If people explained his obvious facts were wrong he would reply "Assertion without evidence"
    If people explained his facts were wrong, and supplied links he would reply "Assertion without evidence"

    Then he would crow that he was great and nobody could ever counter what he said in the thread.
    Wasn't he also inclined to say "argument by link" when links were supplied, and refuse to look at them? Or was that someone else? I'm starting to forget.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    In the end, there was never enough evidence one way or the other to be sure of her claim it was Kavanaugh.


    That you think this is even still open for debate shows how out of touch you are. The fact is, there was no evidence that it was Kavanaugh, and quite a lot of evidence that it wasn't. We are certain of that. The only thing we are uncertain of is whether Ford was willfully lying, or if she was being manipulated and coerced into "remembering" events that never happened.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    No. His point was this.

    You had two possible outcomes. A and B. A had an added incentive of $100 if claimed, regardless of whether A was true or false.

    Outcome A was unreliable for honesty because it was either true, or a lie based on an incentive.
    Outcome B was reliable for honesty because there was not an incentive (and actually a counter incentive since the kid would lose $100) by saying it.

    So, while either outcome was possible, and possibly true, only one outcome could actually be trusted due to the incentive to lie on one of them.
    You did in fact understand the point. And the only reason I gave the example was that I was accused of presenting a no win situation by saying that if those doing the Arizona audit, who expect to find fraud, and who will be greatly rewarded if thy find fraud, could be able to be judged honest if they announced they did not find fraud. Unfortunately, I need to accept the fact that making any sort of nuanced observation on this website is not likely to induce anything but a hostile and derogatory response and therefore simply isn't worth noting.

    It does make me curious. How often did Jim trust people who used to be part of Trump's circle when they aired dirty Trump laundry? After all, once out of his circle of influence, they had plenty of incentive to lie about trump in order to either make money, rescue their reputation, or try and get revenge on someone who threw them under the bus. Did He believe Christine Ford, since she had political incentive to lie (stop Kavanaugh confirmation.)
    MM's responses are necessarily self serving - so I'd take them with a grain of salt. I did not 'uncritically accept' what she said, though it seemed she was probably assaulted at some point by someone. I was on the 'opposition' side in most of those discussions, which means I did not express belief that Kavanaugh did nothing wrong and she was a perfect devil hired by the democratic party to sink the nomination. I really had a hard time with just how vicious and nasty the conversation was about her and said so, which was received about as well as you might expect. I was especially sympathetic to her when Trump publicly shamed her at one (some?) of his rallies - given that public humiliation was part of what she claimed to have been put through by whoever it was that she believed attacked her. I tended to believe something happened - there had been real discussions with a counselor about the incident long before Kavanaugh was nominated - and I doubted seriously that a woman would put herself through what she went through making the case public if she believed nothing had happened.

    In the end, there was never enough evidence one way or the other to be sure of her claim it was Kavanaugh.


    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

    I'd hate to see this Ferengi guy if shuny is more eloquent.
    He was a right wing person. He would come in, spout some random/extreme nonsesne/conspiracy.

    If people explained his logic was wrong, he would reply "Assertion without evidence"
    If people explained his obvious facts were wrong he would reply "Assertion without evidence"
    If people explained his facts were wrong, and supplied links he would reply "Assertion without evidence"

    Then he would crow that he was great and nobody could ever counter what he said in the thread.

    Compare that to Shuny.
    Shuny is left wing.

    His go-to's are generally "Off topic" or "already answered" regardless of whether the responses are on-topic, or regardless of whether he's answered the question prior.

    Either way, it doesn't take long to realize that there's no point in actually engaging them in debate. Not because they won't change their mind, but because they are pretty much not engaging in any meaningful way with dissenters. You might as well be talking to a brick wall or arguing with a doll with a pull-string.
    Last edited by CivilDiscourse; 05-04-2021, 11:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

    hm, you're actually not wrong, that's a good comparison. A slightly more eloquent and wordy version of Ferengi.
    I'd hate to see this Ferengi guy if shuny is more eloquent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
    Did He believe Christine Ford, since she had political incentive to lie (stop Kavanaugh confirmation.)
    Not only did ox uncritically accept any and all claims made by Ford even after her story fell apart, but he enthusiastically condemned anybody who doubted her.

    You can find some examples here: https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...634#post812634

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Let's be honest, it was a stupid and self-serving analogy that strained the point.
    I never said the point was great. Just clarifying what the point was.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
    It's not like the auditors will appear from out of a locked room and announce "The election was fraudulent" and then everybody goes home.
    Apparently we are only to accept pronouncements from locked rooms when it's to declare a Democrat victory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    No. His point was this.

    You had two possible outcomes. A and B. A had an added incentive of $100 if claimed...
    Let's be honest, it was a stupid and self-serving analogy that strained the point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    Honestly, I'm not sure why people try to engage with Shuny, he has shown time and time again that he's not actually here for honest debate. Gond, her reminds me of Ferengi, who would simply dismiss counter arguments as "Assertions without evidence" even when evidence was presented. You guys might as well be yelling at a brick wall for all the good this debate will do, it'll be about as productive. Even debates about definitions with H_A are more honest than debates with Shuny about anything.
    hm, you're actually not wrong, that's a good comparison. A slightly more eloquent and wordy version of Ferengi.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ronson
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    No. His point was this.

    You had two possible outcomes. A and B. A had an added incentive of $100 if claimed, regardless of whether A was true or false.

    Outcome A was unreliable for honesty because it was either true, or a lie based on an incentive.
    Outcome B was reliable for honesty because there was not an incentive (and actually a counter incentive since the kid would lose $100) by saying it.

    So, while either outcome was possible, and possibly true, only one outcome could actually be trusted due to the incentive to lie on one of them.
    The problem with that argument is that it has to be supported. It's not like the auditors will appear from out of a locked room and announce "The election was fraudulent" and then everybody goes home. They'll have to show evidence for their conclusion, incentives or not.

    It does make me curious. How often did Jim trust people who used to be part of Trump's circle when they aired dirty Trump laundry? After all, once out of his circle of influence, they had plenty of incentive to lie about trump in order to either make money, rescue their reputation, or try and get revenge on someone who threw them under the bus. Did He believe Christine Ford, since she had political incentive to lie (stop Kavanaugh confirmation.)
    I was prepared to believe Ford - except her timing was suspicious and her testimony was hearsay. Aside from those on the Left, people saw her for what she was: a monkey wrench. And talk about incentives, she's probably made a tidy fortune off her new-found fame.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

    And.... There are plenty of non-Republican QAnon supporters as well. I'm unsure what your point is, but whatever it is, it was blunted beyond reckoning the moment you started pushing BlueAnon conspiracy theories on the thread while not only attacking conspiracy theorists but also insisting BlueAnon didn't exist. You not only shot yourself in the foot, you shot yourself in the other foot while hopping about after the first shot.
    Honestly, I'm not sure why people try to engage with Shuny, he has shown time and time again that he's not actually here for honest debate. Gond, he reminds me of Ferengi, who would simply dismiss counter arguments as "Assertions without evidence" even when evidence was presented. You guys might as well be yelling at a brick wall for all the good this debate will do, it'll be about as productive. Even debates about definitions with H_A are more honest than debates with Shuny about anything.
    Last edited by CivilDiscourse; 05-04-2021, 08:52 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Gondwanaland, Today, 01:42 PM
1 response
30 views
0 likes
Last Post KingsGambit  
Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 11:42 PM
35 responses
229 views
0 likes
Last Post NorrinRadd  
Started by seer, Yesterday, 04:40 PM
13 responses
91 views
0 likes
Last Post CivilDiscourse  
Started by seanD, 08-14-2022, 12:30 AM
32 responses
278 views
0 likes
Last Post NorrinRadd  
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 08-12-2022, 12:39 PM
19 responses
163 views
1 like
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X